Audio recorded at Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 43-minute talk, Kyabje Rinpoche teaches the Buddhist philosophical tenets, particularly the Mind-Only school and its two principal subdivisions. He begins by contrasting Mind-Only with lower Buddhist schools: where they posit externally existing phenomena, Mind-Only explains all appearances as awakenings of inner imprints. He isolates the core distinction between True Aspect and False Aspect Mind-Only—whether perceiving objects as externally existing marks consciousness stained by ignorance. Through concrete examples (a spinning incense creating a fire ring, a flower appearing to ordinary perception), he shows how ignorance generates the false appearance of independent external existence, while refined understanding perceives the same appearances without such false projection. Substantive Q&A addresses how imprints arise, the mind-object relationship, and how conventional truth operates alongside ultimate truth. Suited for practitioners with philosophical background or serious students of Mahāyāna tenets.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 1994-09-08 – 18B – KR.mp3
UUID: 5dc18134-298d-44ea-aa2c-1159043302e0
Teacher: Kyabje Rinpoche
Collection: Tenets
Date: 1994-09-08
Recorded at: Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide
Words: ~2,589
# Tenets 18b 1994-09-08
**Collection:** Rinpoche Recordings — Tenets (1994)
**Duration:** 43.1 minutes
**Words:** 2,587
**Model:** Deepgram Nova-3
**Corrections applied:** 0
**Transcribed:** 2026-03-01 02:30
—
The two lower Buddhist tenets, Sautrāntika and Vaibhāṣika, explain the existence of external objects or phenomena in different ways because in their case, they explain that external phenomena or objects are composite of so many partless particles. So in their explanation there is nothing to do with the awakening of the imprints from inside one’s consciousness. It is completely and solely a manner explaining that things do externally actually exist. Here then we have a different case in mind only tenet. It is explained it is due to the awakening of inner imprints that one portion of the imprint arises or manifests in the aspect of consciousness perceiving the object and other portion of the imprint manifests as the object being perceived. So it has to do with the awakening of inner imprints and not an external phenomena.
So in mind only tenet this becomes the very basis how they, when presenting their understanding as regards external objects, they refute the lower tenets’ assertion about externally existing phenomena and as well this is the very ground how the mind only tenet explains about their assertion of selflessness of phenomena. In a way we would find that mind only tenet’s explanation of selflessness of phenomena is quite profound and due to that very reason, yes, it is understandable that it could prove to be a bit difficult to get an idea or to use the exact word. It would be a bit difficult to understand their view and theory of selflessness of phenomena. The very part explaining that it is from the same one imprint awakening that the external phenomena appears—that part is a bit difficult to come to grips with.
That part is a bit difficult to understand. Therefore, still we can go through that later on some other evening, Thursday. And then with regards to the sub tenets or the division of mind only tenets, there are two divisions from the view of the aspect. One sub tenet is called the true aspect mind only and the other false aspect mind only. Obviously we then can see here the classification into these two sub tenets is from the perspective about their assertion of aspects.
Here, with regards to the definition of the two sub tenets of mind only tenet, first part definition says it is a mind only tenet. So that is something common to both the sub tenets because it’s no doubt that the two are to belong to mind only tenet. Now before going into the rest part of definition there is mention that it is one those who are seeing this side. So there is a term used, those seeing this side. By that very term what it means is it refers to ordinary beings because in the case of ordinary beings, they only see this side because they only see samsaric things and they are not able to see the one beyond liberation and so forth. In the case of a river we would have, like in the only conventional sense, one only sees this side of the river and not beyond across the other shore of the river.
So here we start at this term. So the definition of the two sub tenets of mind only explains the mind only tenet which explains the eye consciousness of those seeing this side. When seeing the form, there is no stain of the imprint of ignorance—so that becomes the true aspect mind only definition. And the false aspect mind only explains—sorry, will repeat, don’t worry. So those of the false aspect mind only explains when those of this side perceive a form, there is the consciousness stained by the imprint of ignorance.
First, into the definition explanation, we first need to look at what is meant by stains of ignorance. Here, in the case of mind only being a great vehicle tenet, it would refer to the stains of ego-grasping at phenomena. Whereas in the case of the lower tenets, stains of the imprints of ignorance would refer to the stains of ego-grasping at person and not of phenomena. So that in brief completes the explanation of the definition. And to put the definition again, repeat: in the case of the false aspect mind, it would mean a mind only tenet who explains the eye consciousness of the ordinary beings—so I would skip instead of those seeing this side—so who explains the eye consciousness of ordinary beings when perceiving form, the consciousness is stained by the imprint of ignorance. So that—oh, it’s not stained by the imprints of ignorance—that becomes true aspect’s definition. In the case of false aspect mind only, the definition goes like this: false aspect mind only, which explains the eye consciousness, the ordinary being perceiving the form as stained by the imprint of ignorance. The concept is clear. It’s bit wordy.
Now let’s look at an example to clarify on the definition of the two sub tenets. Say with the example of the flower in the front, when the eye consciousness perceives it by an ordinary person, in the sense an ordinary person seeing only this side, only seeing the saṃsāra, well in that case there’s a different perspective as regards to the perceiving of flower. That’s perceiving of flower, but anyway, before going into that, let’s firstly clarify this point. In mind only tenet perspective there is no such thing as a phenomena existing externally by itself without depending on imprint and awakening of imprint. So first point in our mind to clear is according to mind only tenet, the flower is a phenomena which does not externally actually exist from its part.
Instead it exists as a ripening of imprint along with the manifestation of the consciousness perceiving the flower itself. So there is no flower existing from its side externally actually. Yet if an ordinary being who here in this case is termed or called as one seeing this side, yet if an ordinary person, once seeing this side to such a person’s eye consciousness, if the flower appears as externally existing, then it is explained in the case of false aspect mind only tenet that that very appearance of the flower as externally actually existing phenomena is because the eye consciousness perceiving the object being stained by the imprints of the ignorance of grasping at phenomena. So it is due to the stain of ignorance playing part on the eye consciousness which makes the object to appear as externally actually existing from its side which in actual fact according to this tenet is not so. For example, when we light a piece of wood or let’s say an incense, and in dark in the night, then if we swirl it quite fast then it would appear to others that there is a ring of a fire circling.
Although it is not there, but that happens when the wood or the lit incense is turned around quite fast that there does appear a circle, a ring of fire. So in that case there is a stain to the spectator’s eye being caused due to the fast turning of the lit incense or the wood. Similarly here in the case of ordinary being who sees this side only, when there is appearing of phenomena as externally actually existing, it is explained in the tenet here that that very appearance of things or phenomena as existing externally is caused due to the imprint of ignorance on the consciousness. And here the imprint of ignorance is explained as imprint having grasped—imprints of grasping at phenomena existing externally. And that’s what the stained part means.
In the case of Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka, the highest Buddhist tenet, it is explained flower is devoid of existing by its own characteristic, yet to an ordinary being’s ignorant mind it would appear as if existing by its own characteristic by itself and there it is explained that very appearance is caused due to the ignorance which is explained in terms of grasping at true existence of phenomena. In that same fashion here mind only explains in its own way that the very fact to an ordinary person, the flower or object that appears externally, actually existing, is caused due to the imprint of ignorance grasping at phenomena as if they are actually existing externally. So to paraphrase or to put it in paraphrase way, mind only explains the definition or the description of ignorance and its imprint as grasping at phenomena existing externally. That is how it is. And when that is present in the consciousness it causes the ordinary person to have the appearance of things as if they are existing from their own side externally.
What do you mean? With regard to the false aspect mind only tenet, it explains flower does appear to ordinary person, but it explains there’s no flower to be found. And the very fact that the flower, although appears, is not to be found shows an aspect of falsity. The true aspect mind only explains when one perceives flower, if it is perceived as not externally existing, then there is a flower which is perceived. That doesn’t have to be non-existent flower. So an eye consciousness perceiving flower but not externally existing flower—to that eye consciousness the flower appears and as it appears there is a flower which exists although its manner of existence is not externally existing. So in such consciousness’s case there is no staining of imprint by ignorance. Yet if to the eye consciousness, if the flower appears as externally actually existing, then that would mean that there is no such flower existing. That very appearance of the flower as externally actually existing is a mistaken perception.
There is no such flower. Therefore the consciousness which perceives flower as externally actually existing is a consciousness stained by the imprint of ignorance, meaning the ignorance of grasping at phenomena actually existing from their side. So in essence we have a picture of the two aspect mind only tenet explaining that mere appearance of flower to eye consciousness where the eye consciousness does not perceive the flower as externally actually existing does not mean the flower is nonexistent. That flower is truly there. And that’s why it is true aspect—as the flower in its aspect appears to the eye consciousness perceiving it, it is to be found there. But the difference is if eye consciousness perceives the flower as existing from its own side or the flower is truly actually existing externally, externally actually existing, then that is a mistaken perception of the eye consciousness and there is no such flower externally actually existing to be found.
Such aspect about the object does not exist at all. So that is the difference. So in this way there is a difference of the mind only—true aspect mind only and the false aspect mind only—with regards to the aspect of the appearance, say in the case of the flower, the aspect of appearance of the flower. That is where the description of the difference comes between the two sub tenets of the mind only. Compared to the lower tenets, Sautrāntika and Vaibhāṣika, here at mind only stage, things have become much more subtle and tougher. And similarly, it is from another perspective, one has come to a much vast and wider grounds.
So we shall stop here for tonight. Any questions? Questions? It’s okay. So when one awakens the imprints, if there’s nothing external to mind, how are these imprints awakened?
The teacher is saying the imprints would be awakened by conditions or the factors. Yes. That is right. Yep. Because here they don’t—here they explain there’s nothing that is not of one entity with the mind.
So would that mean a mind perceiving that flower was in fact perceiving itself? Mhmm. If it is of one entity, it does not mean it has to necessarily perceive that. For example, let’s say with I, even without I consciousness, I itself, it has so many things which are of one entity, which say the impermanence of the I, the selflessness of the I, the unsatisfactory nature of the I as a sort of thing. But that does not mean the I perceives them all, even though they are one.
The emptiness upon the mind is of one entity with the mind, but mind does not perceive it. As regards to theory, mind only is saying all phenomena are of one entity with mind. The proof that they bring about is the proof of asserting that it is due to the same imprint manifesting in those two split aspects—one is the form and one is the consciousness perceiving that form or the object—that how everything is within the entity of the mind. So that is their proof, the explanation or the proof of same imprint. The imprints are caused by their preceding moments. So imprints, say in the case of the consciousness, are caused by the imprint of the earlier moment and the imprint of the earlier moment is caused by the one preceding that.
Say in the case of the eye consciousness perceiving the flower, that manifestation of the imprint into the two aspects is caused by the previous imprint of the eye consciousness perceiving the flower and that itself is caused by the previous moment. So in a way we can say beginning to the imprint is endless. So that it is a beginningless imprint. Similarly here with the context example of the flower, eye consciousness perceiving flower, it would be then maintained the imprint of the eye consciousness perceiving flower was beginningless. And then in regards to a more present relatable thing we can say today’s perceiving of the flower by the eye consciousness becomes the cause for the future imprints of the eye consciousness perceiving the flower and it could extend to tomorrow, day after tomorrow and so forth.
They are simultaneously formed. So they are simultaneous. The present moment of eye consciousness perceiving the present flower, the two are formed simultaneously. Yeah. Yeah.
It is a conventional reality, conventional truth. There would be appearance of the, say, flower as truly existing simultaneous—in the case of ordinary being when the flower appears to the eye consciousness. Whether there is a grasping at that time simultaneous or not perhaps we’ll think about it. But there is definite appearing of the flower as truly existing simultaneous with the flower appearing. The conventional truth is defined as when the valid knowledge perceiving it perceives it together with the dual appearance, that is the conventional truth.
And the definition of ultimate truth is the valid knowledge perceiving it directly perceives it with the dual appearance subsided, then that becomes ultimate truth. But here in interpretation it needs clarification—the word for dualism is a convenient translation. The word actually means dual appearance, true appearance. Dualism may not be the right word but literally it means dual appearance. Yeah. That was so good. No. I’ll stop here.